this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
673 points (93.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

19564 readers
589 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Stop comparing programming languages

  • Python is versatile
  • JavaScript is powerful
  • Ruby is elegant
  • C is essential
  • C++
  • Java is robust
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 49 points 5 months ago (6 children)

C++ is OVERWHELMINGLY SUPERIOR, if you ask any professional C++ developer.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I was a professional C++ developer for several years, and came to the conclusion that any professional C++ developers who don't acknowledge its flaws have a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is true of every language. If you can't think of things you don't like about the language you're working in (and/or its tooling) you just don't know the language very well or are in denial.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ehhh, I mean this more strongly. I've never met people more in denial about language design problems than C++ adherents. (Though admittedly I haven't spent much time talking to Lisp fans about language design.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's made worse by the fact C++11 made a lot of solutions for the deep problems in the language. As the C++ tradition dictates, the problems themselves are carefully preserved for backward compatibility, the solutions are like a whole different language.

And Lisp is small - the first Google result provides a Lisp interpreter in 117 lines of Python code.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

C++11 also introduced new problems, such as the strange interaction between brace-initialization and initializer-lists (though that was partially fixed several years later), and the fairly arcane rules around move semantics with minimal compiler support (for example, it would be great if the standard required compilers to emit an error if a moved-from object were accessed).

I know Lisp is minimal, I'm just saying that I expect there are Lisp fans who won't acknowledge (or would excuse) any shortcomings in the language, just as there are C++ fans who do the same for C++.

load more comments (4 replies)